Analyzing Competing Origin Myths and Interpretations Through Hegemonic Representations

Home , Antiquization, Skopje 2014

138 EDEFINING NATIONAL IDENTITY IN MACEDONIA RAnalyzing Competing Origin Myths and Interpretations through Hegemonic Representations

Maja Muhić Faculty of Languages, Cultures, and Communications, South East European University, Tetovo, Macedonia

ka tribina 37, vol. 44, 2014., str. 138-152 44, 2014., str. 37, vol. š ka tribina etnolo Aleksandar Takovski English Language Center, South East European University, Tetovo, Macedonia

' is paper analyzes symbolism pertaining to and popular receptions of the project Skopje 214, an architectural journey in the capital of the Republic of Macedonia. While a) empting to understand the multifaceted symbolic meanings and perceptions associated with this project, we pay a) ention to the existence of previous narratives of Macedonian national identity prior to the announcement of Skopje 2014 and therefore position the project against that backdrop. We want to argue that Skopje 2014 represents a monumental and spectacular turning point in o+ cial narratives of Macedonian national identity. ' e gap between the previously dominant narrative of Macedonian national identity, and the new o+ cial discourse o* ered and realized in and through Skopje 2014, and the multicultural reality of the country are the central themes of this work. Key words: cultural symbolism, discourse, meaning, semiotics, national identity, antiquisation, de- o) omanization, Skopje 2014

Introduction c paper, submitted 21.12.2013., accepted 26.6.2014. c paper, / is paper analyzes the agendas, popular reception, and interpretations of a recent architectural project in Skopje, the capital of the Republic of Macedonia, a project named Skopje 2014. While a& empting to understand the multifaceted symbolic meanings and perceptions associated with this project, we will pay a& ention to the existence of previous narratives of Macedonian national identity prior to the announcement of Skopje 2014. However, we want to argue that Skopje 2014 represents a monumental and spectacular turning point in o0 cial narratives of Macedonian national identity. / e disjuncture between the previously dominant narrative of Macedonian national identity and the new o0 cial discourse o) ered and realized in and through Skopje 2014 is one of the central themes of this paper. / e ' rst part of the paper explores this disconnectedness by examining how the politics of space and representation manifested by Skopje 2014 reworks premises of national identity formulated against two central features – the Yugoslav (and socialist) and the O& oman (and Islamic) legacies. / e fact that Macedonian national identity is heavily marginalized by neighboring ideologies is a source of inspiration for the project. / e second part of the paper

DOI:10.15378/1848-9540.2014.37.05 original scientiﬁ DOI:10.15378/1848-9540.2014.37.05 original engages with a seemingly public debate largely constructed by the two competing discours- MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 139 es o) ered by the political elites. In this respect, it will be argued that this semiotic struggle marked by the political dominance of the Government over the oppositions’ criticism has had a divisional impact on Macedonian political and national realities. In this respect, the study proposes two central arguments. / e ' rst argument, in the ' rst part of the paper, a& empts to show that Skopje 2014 destabilized or at its best, builds a su- per' cial national identity in Macedonia in profound ways that are still emerging. Second, it tries to show that what seems to be an ongoing public debate where views and ideologies clash over the question of the interpretation of the projects multi-perspectival and heteroge- neous values and functions is in essence a very speci' c situation. Namely, we believe that it re* ects a situation of power imbalance and abuse in which government discourses are trying to silence opposing voices, thus irreversibly risking not only the abolition of public space, but more importantly the creation of insurmountable social, political and ideological ' ssures in an otherwise unstable and threatened national and civic unity.

Methodology and Parameters of the Study

/ is research consists of a three layered-methodology. First, we will start by providing a re- view of the anthropological literature concerning nation building processes in Macedonia as a backdrop against which Skopje 2014 will be positioned to show how it disrupts past narratives and proposes a new allegedly linear evolution of Macedonian identity going back to antiquity. / is will be followed with an overview of some policies (principally cultural) relat- ing to the multi-ethnic context of the country including the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which was complicated thanks to the simultaneous cra+ ing of ethno-nationalist politics and projects such as Skopje 2014. / e versatility of this discourse will be positioned against the backdrop of international recommendations and pressures for the country as they greatly in* uence the nationalist narratives and partly, as they served as an inspiration for the Skopje 2014 project. Finally, within this context of opposed discourses operating in hierarchically organized levels of enunciation (party-critics-people), we will try to trace a rhetoric and discursive continuity, the inter-relation and interdependence between the formative role of the parties’ discourses, their reiteration and ampli' cation in the texts produced by intellectuals, experts, social critics and the like, as well as their impact on people’s a& itudes. / e purpose of this is to demonstrate how the dominant discourse concerning the project, whilst seemingly oppositional, is in fact a power ridden, hegemonic discourse, imposed by the political elite.

Constructing a Macedonian National Identity amidst Neighboring Discourses and the Country’s Multicultural Reality

Historically speaking, Macedonia refers to a geographical and historical region of the Bal- kan Peninsula. Its boundaries have drastically changed throughout history. Today, it includes parts of modern-day Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Kosovo, and the Republic of Macedonia. / e territory of the present day Republic of Macedonia was under O& oman rule for a long period of time, that is, from 1371, when the O& omans gained access to a number of cities that 140 ARTICLES

belonged to the wider / racian and Macedonian region including the central region of what is today the Republic of Macedonia (around the town of Prilep) until 1913. / e territory of the present day Republic of Macedonia was in 1913 the last part of the Balkans ruled by the O& oman Empire. A+ er 1919, Macedonia entered the Kingdom of Yugoslavia under Serbian jurisdiction and without any administrative autonomy. A+ er 1945, Macedonia was de' ned as the People’s Republic of Macedonia within the framework of Yugoslavia. A+ er the breakup of Yugoslavia, Macedonia declared independence on 8 September 1991 and was admi& ed to the UN on 8 April 1993 as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) until an agreement concerning the new state’s name could be reached with Greece. / e naming dispute has still not been resolved and is to a great extent a crucial factor for the strengthening of nationalist discourses, artistic production, and tensions between the two major ethnicities in the country – Macedonians and Albanians.1 / is brief overview of the historical circumstances sheds light on complexities regarding the construction of Macedonian national identity. Before moving to analyze Skopje 2014 let us look brie* y into an exciting nation-building journey proposed by the anthropologist Keith Brown in his ' e Past in Question (2003). / e main focus of his work is on the organized revolt against the O& oman Empire known as the Ilinden Uprising of August 1903 taking place in the small town of Krushevo, in the present day Republic of Macedonia. / is event resulting in the short-lived Krushevo Republic, which became a national symbol for the Re- public of Macedonia, and still resonates strongly among those who feel Macedonian. Brown immaculately dissects the multifaceted ways in which the “local histories”, that is, various explanations of the nature of the uprising of the inhabitants of Krushevo (a historically mixed town incorporating Greeks, Turks, Albanians, Macedonians, and Vlachs) interacted with the national history. / e Ilinden uprising is in Brown’s account, the gravitational center of Mac- edonian historiography over time, including the period of Socialism and the period following the independence of the country in 1991. / e metaphor of the Ilinden uprising has been powerfully applied in the 1950s when the Partisan Struggle in WWII has been referred to as the “Second Ilinden” of Macedonian national liberation, thus promoting this period and this event as a symbol and paradigm of national awakening and liberation.

Disrupting Narratives: The Newly Emerging Facades of a Non-existent Past

Skopje 2014 breaks away from this pa& ern and disturbs these narratives, proposing a new allegedly linear history of the Macedonian nation, stretching all the way back to antiquity. So far, this project has radically changed the face of the city, launching itself with the erection of a monumental statue of Alexander the Great in the central square, dubbed ' e warrior on a horse, as well as at least ' + y additional sculptures, bridges, Churches, and museums. SK 2014 is also known and criticized as Antiquisation.2 / e main investor in SK 2014 is the Govern-

1 According to the last population census in 2002, 1,297,981 inhabitants declared themselves to be Macedonians, representing 64.18% of the total population. Approximately 509,083 inhabitants declared themselves as Albanians, representing 25.17% of the population. Smaller ethnic minorities include Turks (77,959 or 3.85%), Roma (53,879 or 2.66%), Serbs (35,939 or 1.78%), Bo- sniaks (17,018 or 0.84%), Vlachs (9,695 or 0.48%), and others (20,993 or 1.04%). / e Macedonian national census records most ethnic groups, but the smaller ones are not enumerated separately in the ' nal report. 2 As Vangeli points out: “in the contemporary Macedonian discourse “antiquization” refers to the identitarian policies based on the assumption that there is a direct link between today’s ethnic Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians” (2001: 13). MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 141 ment of the Republic of Macedonia (i.e. its ruling conservative democratic-Christian party VMRO-DPMNE, which came into power in 2006 and was re-elected in 2008, 2011, and 2014). / ey have invested an 80 to 200 million Euros. / e Ministry of Culture announced a public competition, but no international competitor won the bid, the design and execution of the project having been entrusted to local architects and artists.

Figure 1: View of the central monument in Skopje City Square dubbed “Warrior on a Horse” (photo credit: www. everythingmacedonia.com)

/ e proponents of this project argue that it neatly o) ers a linear chronological overview of all things Macedonian. Ironically though, there is almost no correlation between these ' gures, marking an alleged continuity of Macedonian national identity. / e project commemorates all sorts of historical characters, thus creating confusion, rather than linearity as concerns identity. It goes from the Antique period; moves on to ' gures from early Christianity, notable historical & gures who were born in or ruled in or around Skopje, as well as a league of freedom ' ghters who fought for Mace donian independence. It also includes two huge boats in the otherwise non-navigable Vardar river. Millions of Euros have been spent on the project. It was only recently that the government presented an o0 cial ' nancial report, which con' rmed rumours of the he+ y fees paid to the sculptors.3 In his archaeological-architectonic analysis of the project, Chausidis (2013: 37) points out the fact that Skopje has never been much of a utilitarian city, but rather a symbolic city, which o+ en served as a medium for the expression of particular individuals’ dominance, en- acted through architectural frenzy – this includes anything from Romans, through to Byzan- tines, O& omans, Serbs, Bulgarians, Yugoslavs, socialists, communists. / e current symbolism is rather confused and creates an overall (an)aesthetical dissonance of styles and historical

3 Darko Duridanski reports in the Balkan Insight article from the 26 April 2013, that Valentina Stevanovska, designer of some of the main statues that form part of the project, including the equestrian statue of Alexander the Great, one of his father, Philip, as well as a triumphal arch, earned 2.9 million euros in fees. Stevanovska was a complete unknown before being awarded the commissions to design the grand statues. For the 24-metre-high Alexander statue on Skopje’s central square, Stevanovska earned 649,000. Inte- restingly, the political barometer in September 2012, as part of a regular piece of research into public opinion carried out by “TNS Brima Gallup Intl” showed that 57.8% had a negative opinion, and 26.4 % had a positive opinion with the rest being undecided. 142 ARTICLES

periods. Koteska (2011) points out that although Skopje 2014 in itself carries all sorts of as- semblages of past times and styles, one style is however clearly absent: the soc-realistic style. Before Skopje 2014, two most distinctive characteristics of the city were: the Old Turkish Ba- zaar and the modern socialist buildings from the 1950s to 1970s. Part of these buildings were far more pragmatic than socialist, as they catered for society a+ er the devastating earthquake of 1963 in Skopje, when architects from the whole world (including Kenzo Tange), gathered to help and provide the city with a new fresh, modern look, and buildings that would accom- modate as many people as possible. / is modern look is additionally taken out of the city, and a neoclassical, baroque architecture is implanted instead. / e new buildings must satisfy the request of having a baroque or neoclassical facade, while the older but modern buildings are now under the a& ack of “new-old” facades, undergoing a full make over. A blatant example is the building of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia, designed in 1970 by the architect Petar Mulickovski, and the “new” baroque facade currently being built. / e architect refused to participate as a consulting expert and speci' ed that changing this building’s facade is illegal and that the persons responsible must give a statement on this issue. / e governmental excuses are lame to say the least, ranging from dubious arguments that the aesthetics of the building will be improved, to claiming that the new facade will improve the safety and make energy savings in the building.4 Koteska (2011) further notes that SK 2014 intended to cut o) both the socialist and O& oman legacy. We want to argue that Skopje 2014 is a clear break from the socialist past, and ironically so, as the Republic of Macedonia was constituted for the ' rst time in 1944 as part of the People’s Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Even more ironically, it is a break from a recent, very modern past, when architects ranging from Kenzo Tange to local names as Mulickovski had a very modern, if not futuristic vision of the city. Instead of that, SK 2014 implanted baroque and neoclassicism, styles unknown to this region. Equally so, if not more, SK 2014 is a de-o& omanization process aimed at cu& ing o) or at its best, obliterating the O& oman heritage and breaking away from Islam. Even if it does aim at cra+ ing a mono-ethnic, Macedonian, Christian Orthodox sentiment, it does so against the multi-ethnic reality and legacy of the country. As Koteska (2011) observes “SK 2014 produced a line of ethnic, gender and class divisions. Namely, the bronze mania serves only to build up the dominant Macedonian identity and the demographic exclusivity, while the ethnic minorities (Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Serbs, Roma, etc.) are not being adequately represented.” With this in mind, we will brie* y look at the complexities of the multicultural reality of Macedonia, including the ethnic con* ict which took place in 2001 and the preceding discourse of the country as an oasis of peace, vis-a-vis the blood shedding experiences of the other former Yugoslav countries. Although believed to be the only state to gain independence peacefully from former Yugoslavia, in 2001 Macedonia was struck by an ethnic con* ict, which brought eight months of unrest to the region. / e con* ict expressed the grievances of the Albanian community as a marginalized group within Macedonia, and aimed to improve its participation in society. / e Ohrid Framework Agreement (OFA) was signed on 13 August 2001, ' nally pu& ing an end to the insurgencies and improving the conditions of the Albanian population in Macedonia. Skopje 2014 displaces the multiculturalist narrative cra+ ed in this agreement, and Albanians as well other ethnic groups reacted to its mono- ethnic, Christian Orthodox prominence.

4 For more details on the disagreement between the architect of the original building design who won a number of world prizes for their creative ideas and the new façade, as well as photos, see h& p://www.build.mk/?p=24670 and h& p://www.dnevnik.mk/?Item ID=3F3B5BC7018082468C6D2297FE441D7C. MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 143

/ e salt on this wound is the “name dispute” with Greece and its insistence on the change of the constitutional name of the country. In this light, we must interpret much of SK 2014 as a political statement to Greece regarding the “name dispute” as manifested through architecture. / e centrality and the size of the sculpture Warrior on a Horse, which otherwise makes a blatant association with Alexander the Great is but one example. To support this interpretation, we bring the statement of the former minister of foreign a) airs, Antonio Miloshoski, who in an interview for the Guardian on the initiative to build the 22 meter monument of Alexander and having in mind the 20-year long name dispute between the Republic of Mac- edonia and Greece over the name Macedonia, replied: “/ is is our way of saying [up yours] to them!”5 / is desire to take revenge or make a political statement regarding the tensions with Greece, resulted in the construction of architectural narratives, which do not necessar- ily correspond with the overall opinions of the citizens of Macedonia as we shall see in the remainder of this text. It additionally unnerves the other ethnic groups in the country and disturbs the existing narratives of Macedonian national identity touched upon earlier.

Cultural Intimacy and SK 2014

Verdery argues that statues o+ en stabilize the landscape and temporarily freeze particular values in it (2000: 6). She makes a solid vivisection of the political symbolism behind the erection/removal of statues and bodies from mausoleums in East Europe and the former So- viet Union since 1989. Her observations that statues are dead people cast in bronze or carved in stone, symbolizing the timelessness and sacredness of a person is accurate (ibid.: 5). Like- wise is her statement that “desecrating a statue partakes of the larger history of iconoclasm” (ibid.). She also goes on to argue that, while there is nothing speci' cally post-socialist about tearing down or erecting statues (as it goes on all over the world) there are certain instances speci' c to post-socialism. One of the instances is that many post-socialist countries wish to claim discontinuity with the socialist past and embark on tearing down much of the socialist era statues. While there is a clear desire to detach from much of the socialist past in the SK 2014 project, the project also reveals the desire to make a break from other legacies (O& o- man/Muslim) in particular and implant new histories (baroque/neoclassicism), which did not exist previously. Although clearly aimed at building an awareness of the national self amidst neighbouring denials, research conducted by the Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities Skopje (ISSHS), on SK 2014 and its e) ects on the perception of Macedonian identity among its citizens, diagnosed a recurring pa& ern in the results. / e researchers departed from the premise that, by way of producing symbolism with distinct historical references and aesthetics through monuments and architecture, the SK 2014 intends to a0rm, strengthen and ensure the perseverance of a historical truth about Macedonian identity as the only truth. Among various theoretical frameworks, this project rightly took Herzfeld’s (2005) concept of “cultural intimacy” as a concept which relates to the culture and its symbolism one most immediately identiﬁes with as familiar, yet not the face of the collective self one would want a foreigner to see. / is is everyday culture and its codes of intimacy that state institutions mobilize in order to build an o0cial national narrative. Hence according to Herzfeld: “the

5 / e full interview can be downloaded here: h& p://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/14/alexander-great-macedonia- warrior-horse. 144 ARTICLES

embarrassing” intimate side of the national sense of sel6 ood are “sanitized” by providing it with a functional position in the narrative of an internationally presentable self. / e results of the research however, show incompatibility with the codes of “cultural intimacy” (2005: 4). / e results revealed that Macedonian identity was mainly described as a blurred catego- ry, ' lled with a sense of inferiority, and identity confusion. Moreover, Skopje 2014 was not a prominent marker of identity formation, or the rede' ning of a nation, since most interlocu- tors experienced culture through various non-material rei' cations (music, language, tradition, food, etc.) and the period of antiquity is not high on the list of national markers. / is research also found out that the sense of “cultural shame” appeared as predominant among Macedonians. Asked about the historical period that de' nes Macedonian national identity the answers gave the following ' gures:6 – Independence (from 1991) 13% – Enlightenment period (19 century) 26 % – / e Revolutionary period (beginning of the 20 century) 31 % – SFRY 30 % An additional national poll was carried out by ISSHS in September 2013. According to the results of the poll only 5.8% of the general population viewed antiquity as an historically and culturally defining period for Macedonia, whereas among ethnic Macedonians the result was 7.6%. / e majority of the ethnic Macedonians identi' ed the period of Medieval Slavic Christianity (of the so‐called “enlighteners” St Cyril and St Methodius) as the most formative period from the less recent past. Moreover, an average of one quarter of the respondents identified the periods of independence from SFR Yugoslavia, of participation in the federa- tion of SFR Yugoslavia, the IMRO (International Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) period and that of Medieval Slavic Christianity as historically defining for the formation of Macedonian ethnic identity. A great argument for the disruption of the previous national narratives comes to the fore with results which show that 73% of the participants in the survey think of Goce Delchev (one of the organizers of the Ilinden uprising) as the leading ' g- ure involved in constructing Macedonian national identity, while only 9% consider that person to be Alexander the Great. / ese results show that there is a great discrepancy between the population’s sentiment and the narrative the Government seeks to promote.7 Clearly, antiquity as a period is very low on the citizens of Macedonia’s agenda, and yet the statue of Alexander the Great is seen protruding in the city centre square and everything else, including Goce Delchev, revolves around it. Filtered through the lens of ‘cultural intimacy’, the results point to serious discrepancies between the o0 cial cultural pro' le and ‘codes of everyday culture’. It is clear from the results that the project and hence the country’s cultural policy does not operate within the cultural codes of everyday culture. Instead, SK 2014 seems to be a distant and alienating cultural formation to which citizens respond indi) erently. / ese results further chime with Herzfeld’s work (2004) on the Greek obsession to hide anything that didn’t resemble Ancient Greece due to the Western European insistence that they had to be like the Ancient Greeks (Byrne 2011: 151). Cultural intimacy for Herzfeld is precisely the recognition of those aspects of a cultural identity that are considered a source of external embarrassment, and yet provide insiders with an assurance of common sociality. A key study with which we can make useful comparisons to SK 2014 is Herzfeld’s A Place in

6 For deeper insights into and further information regarding the results of the ISSHS research project ‘Skopje 2014 Project and its E)ects on the Perception of Macedonian Identity Among the Citizens of Skopje’, see h& p://isshs.edu.mk/documents/1.-Sk2014- ENG.pdf. 7 For details of the results, see h& p://isshs.edu.mk/documents/Who-owns-Alexander-the-Great-A-Question-Upon-Which-EU- Enlargement-Relies.pdf. MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 145

History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town (1991). Just as the town of Rethemnos in Crete has many pasts and is a mixture of Venetian and Turkish architecture, so might we speak of Macedonia in the same way, where the most prominent architectural styles are the residues of Byzantium and the Turks. Interestingly enough, Herzfeld notes how “the modern Rethemniots’ expressed preference for Venetian over Turkish culture” (Herzfeld 1991: 56-57), thus illustrating a Greek prejudice that is part of a long-standing hostility towards Turkey. Hence, Herzfeld traces political contours in the changing architectural image of the town and places the archaeologists and historians against the local populace. Herzfeld’s maintains that there are two contesting histories opposing each other, one of them being the monumental or o0 cial, the other one being social, i.e., popular history (ibid.: 10). / rough his study of the Cretan town he comes to understand that the inhabitants’ interest or disdain towards the built environment is closely related to people’s personal histories as opposed to the monumental or formal history, which is what a& racts the preservation and conservation agencies that turn people’s homes into collective monuments. Herzfeld draws our a& ention to the fact that the populace is devoid of agency in the act of monumentalising and formalis- ing history by the conservators, who create “traditional neighbourhoods and archaeological monuments of what, for the residents are the streets where their friends and enemies live and die” (ibid.: 6). Herzfeld is right in arguing that the people of Rethemnos “tried to reclaim their lives from a detemporalised past and a desocialised present” (ibid.: 9). Yet, their preference for Venetian over Turkish culture, or their resentment at not being permi& ed to dismantle the remaining Turkish wooden window boxes (ibid.: xii), shows that the social/popular history is equally powerful in changing national narratives. Whilst the results of the research showed that the project does not correspond with the cultural codes of everyday culture pertinent to most citizens in Macedonia, this observation is true mainly for the protruding Alexander the Great monument, which occupies the central position in this architectural undertaking. However, when it comes to hiding things considered embarrassing, SK 2014 corresponds perfectly with the sentiment of many Macedonians to detach themselves from the O& oman past and from Islam, mistakenly correlated with the Albanian population who are o+ en looked upon as enemies of the state by the Macedonian population who took up weapons in 2001 to ' ght for greater rights. One vivid example is the blatant refusal of the members of council of the municipality of the Center of SK to accept the Major’s proposal to discuss the initiative of the Islamic Community of Macedonia to restore the centuries old Burmali Mosque at the original site of the central square currently planned for the new City Hall as part of SK 2014.8 To this end, there is a general anti-Muslim sentiment found among many Macedonians. Hence, at this level, SK 2014 corresponds perfectly well with the “cultural intimacy” concept. Albeit not overtly excited about the monument of Alexander the Great, Macedonian citizens have generally not reacted to the ethnic separation and anti- Muslim perspective this project rea0 rms, because they too, feel strong resentment against it and wish to hide it as an embarrassing part of their identity. In other words, the monumental o0 cial narratives of SK 2014 are in accord with the popular history of most Macedonians. Clearly SK 2014 aims at creating a Macedonian, Orthodox Christian national identity amidst competing neighbouring agendas, and the multicultural se& ing of the country. It does so by tearing apart, fragmenting and creating discontinuous segments of the organic tissue of the history of this region and country for the bene' t of a few and the loss of the vast majority of Macedonian citizens.

8 More info can be found at h& p://www.utrinski.mk/?ItemID=94166D2418B86C4EA7FEC4D5323EBDEA. 146 ARTICLES Forum Populi, Vox Populi

/ e second section of the study seeks to shed some light on the divisional impact that the project has had upon the interpretative discourses that have emerged from this seemingly architectural project. In this respect, the study will argue that what seems to be an ongoing public debate whereby views and ideologies clash over the question of the interpretation of the project’s multi-perspective and heterogenic values and functions, in essence is a situation of power imbalance and abuse in which the Governmental discourse is trying to silence opposing voices, thus irreversibly risking not only the abolition of the public space, but more importantly the creation of insurmountable social, political and ideological ' ssures in an otherwise already unstable and threatened national and civil unity and stability. / is section will try to untangle some of the multilayered competing interpretations produced by the largest Macedonian parties – the ruling VMRO DPMNE9 and the oppositional SDSM,10 which are in turn enforced and perpetuated by the help of their apologists and likeminded public ' gures, and are re* ected in the popular everyday discourses of Macedonian citizens. Within this context of opposing discourses operating along hierarchically organized levels of enunciation (party-critics-people), we will try to trace a rhetorical and discursive continuity: an inter-relation and interdependence between the formative role of the parties’ discourses, their reiteration and ampli' cation in the texts produced by intellectuals, experts, social critics and the like, and their impact on people’s a& itudes. / e purpose of this is to demonstrate how the discourse on the project, although seemingly oppositional is in fact a power ridden, hegemonic discourse of the imposing political elite. / e discussion will be positioned against the discourse analytical background as a theoretical frame convenient for the discursive analysis of the production of meaning and its ideological implications. Conceiving of discourse as an inseparable unity of language use, discursive act and social practice (Fair- clough 1992; van Dijk 1997) this framework seeks to analyze certain key propositions, their interdependence on various hierarchical levels of production (source-proponents-people), their ideological implications as well as to account for the sociopolitical e) ects of this language use within the discourse formation so conceived. To achieve the end of demonstrating the hierarchically organized structure accountable for the production of meaning that is subdued in elite political interests, and to analyse its e) ects, several various have been analyzed: news articles, interviews, reports, TV debates, TV reports and internet discussion forums. / e whole of the analysis is based on and largely organized around three key propositions articulated by the government: that ‘the project contributes to the growth of the local economy, to the development of tourism and to the rei' cation of subjugated history’. / ese propositions are constructed though a series of dif- ferent argumentative strategies and schemes in which the government mostly relies on the topos of comparison and strategies of di) erentiation, scapegoating/victimization, and le- gitimization/delegitimization amongst some. (for a fuller account on these strategies espe- cially in the context of the discursive construction of national identity see Wodak et al. 2009 [1999]) / e linguistic manifestation of these strategies have been analyzed on a clause level, by a presentation and discussion of the implicit and explicit links that the clauses used have ' rstly with the immediate context of occurrence and then intertextually to other aspects of

9 / e acronym is a compound made from the name of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VMRO), an organization formed at the end of the XIX century with the general objective of liberating the then occupied Macedonian territory from Turks, with the modern addition of DPMNE (1991), which stands for the Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity. 10 / e Social Democratic Alliance of Macedonia is the opposition block in Macedonia led by the Social Democratic Party. MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 147 the discourse. From here one may work one’s way to the ideologemes embedded in such linguistic structures (Fairclough 1992). In addition, the counter-hegemonic voice of the opposing party mainly focuses on the strategy of subverting the ‘economy’ argument, emphasizing the ‘aesthetic’ argument and trying to completely delegitimize the whole project.

Discourse Representation and Analysis

/ e ‘economic bene' t’ argument was brought to the fore at a press conference held at the end of April 2013 (22. 4. 2013) where the Macedonian Minister of Culture, Mrs. Elizabeta Kanceska Milevska, in an exhaustive manner a& empted to justify the ' nancial expenditure by both presenting the project cost and reminding the public of the economic bene' t of the project which she described as a capital investment with a visible and veri' able impact upon structural engineering, encouraging the growth of industry, creating new jobs, and contribut- ing to the accumulation of additional income from the number of tourist visits11. At the conference, answering a journalist’s question referring to the opposition’s criticisms of the low aesthetic criteria of the project, the Minister used a referentially vague, but much iterative phrase ‘something is being built’, which was used as a counter-a& ack on the absence of any architectural, or construction activities conducted by their major opponents SDSM, in an a& empt to delegitimize the oppositions’ criticisms. / is ‘something’ is contextually seman- ticised as ‘a movement, (a di) erence) from the dead spot’ le+ by the previously ruling party, which hadn’t built anything against which the current project could be either compared or evaluated.

Figure 2: A view from the “Goce Delcev” bridge, with the new Skopje 2014 buildings seen on the left bank and the “old” modernist building architecture on the right bank of the river (photo credit: Stojan Toshe Nikolovski)

/ e consistent frame wherein one side continuously builds support for its argument by at- tacking that of the other was also present in the opposition’s discourse which criticizes the project on many grounds including: a) ' nancial embezzlement, b) circumvention of local government laws, urban planning, and building permits, c) the non-transparent manner of planning and decision making, d) an unprofessional and devastating architectural concept e)

11 / e claim of a54% annual growth of tourist visits has been scrutinized recently, as the following analysis shows, demonstrating that the increase has been a marginal one (see Anfas 28. 4. 2013). 148 ARTICLES

an aesthetic kitsch, f) a “cultural rape” that demonstrates a lack of understanding of national and cultural values, g) an expression of political totalitarianism. / e opposition contestation went so far as the a& empt of the newly appointed mayor of the Center municipality, Mr. Andrej Zernovski, to put a moratorium on the project in order to ' nancially and legally revise it with the hope of unveiling instances of embezzlement and law-breaking. A li& le a+ er their public announcement of this intention, the mayor was heavily criticized and ridiculed by many Government-supporting organizations, among which, by the Macedonian 2001 military con* ict veterans ‘Bedem’, whose spokesman stated that: (1) / e revision will face a ' erce reaction not only from the organization ‘Bedem’, but also from all Macedonian citizens, (…) this is not a political reaction, but a defense of Mace- donian national dignity. (eVesti 27. 4. 2013) / is comment, wherein the economic and legal intent of the revision was displaced by national(istic) discourse that reiterates the government’s national identity strengthening strategy (‘homage to national heroes’) is just one example of many apologetic and even politically partisan discourses that defended the project. Other similar justi' cations could be heard from many quarters including: university professors, political allies, public ' gures, journalists, and the like. / us: (2) / e project does not only actively write history, it opens the forbidden, hidden pages of Macedonian history. (Kurir 9. 5. 2013) (3) A+ er 56 years I am not ashamed to have a guest from abroad (…) I am not ashamed because I have somewhere to take him to take photographs (…) by building Skopje in the past 7 years we have built a new Alexandria. (Faktor 28. 4. 2013) / e ' rst and the second excerpt articulate a naturalizing argument whereby the project is presented as an opportunity for history to speak for itself. / e project is thus an ideologically and politically undisputed signi' cation of the subjugated national past. In this sense, the project constitutes a strategy for the scripting of national history, a rhetorically powerful and even visceral rei' cation of the unknown, the hidden and the forbidden. / e third excerpt, except for the argument ‘an opportunity to take a picture’, discussed later, con' rms the magnitude and the historic signi' cance of the project through the use of the metaphor ‘a new Alexandria’. / e most devoted apologist, the architect Vangel Bozinovski, justi' es the project because: a) ‘leaving a lasting mark is a costly endeavor’, and b) “the new look was necessary as the old look lacked completeness and vision” (24 Vesti 8. 5. 2013). As for the choice of a baroque style he maintains that Macedonian style in the XXI century does not have to be identical in form and content to 21 century styles elsewhere (Zebra Online 9. 5. 2013). Simi- lar to the example above, Bozinovski believes that the project writes the true, genuine history of the Macedonian nation, something that has not been done by the majority of slavophilic historiographers. On the other hand, the architect Miroslav Grcev, has been criticizing the project on many grounds including: unlawfulness, unruly manner of execution (no political, cultural, aesthetic or architectural research was carried out, and no public debate preceded its acceptance). In his professional opinion, the project is distasteful, an ‘architectural stu& ering’ (24 Vesti 8. 5. 2013), both a usurpation of public space, and a kitsch and political perversion of a single man. / ere are a number of likeminded critics who also point to the ' nancial embezzlement involved, and the unlawful and anti-constitutional execution of the project, veiled in secrecy and non-transparency. Some of the architects strongly agree that the project, which made the architectural profession in Macedonia obsolete, has also had a devastating e) ect on the MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 149 spatial development of the city. Its unprofessionalism and lack of expertise has penetrated all levels in which meanings are articulated (ideological, historiographic, urbanistic, cultural, artistic). From an aesthetic point of view, all critics agree that it is the biggest example of kitsch, a counterfeit, epigone project in the history of the country), a theme park that serves the purpose of being consumed, but a park which has, as noted by the architect Bakalcev, an ‘obsessive narrativity’ (Okno 25. 4. 2013). / e symbolic burden and emptiness of this totali- tarian project is poetically articulated by the artist Liljana Gjuzelova according to whom: ‘we have overloaded the emptiness, one void space being ' lled by another (Gjuzelova for Okno survey, in: Okno 17. 9. 2012). / ese irreconcilable relations between the two poles of the public debate are also re- * ected in the media reports where apart from a number of favorable media reports (“Citi- zens supporting Skopje 2014”, “Survey: Majority of citizens support the government and the project 2014.”), there are a series of critical reports. One of these, aired by the Radio of Free Europe, addresses the issue of re-facading the city center, and the choice of baroque as the aesthetic-architectural code. Except for the objections that the project literally wipes the existing modern look and architectural tradition out of history, (a tradition that has been initi- ated by the world renowned Japanese architect Kenzo Tange who has been globally awarded for his modernist vision of the city), what is notable in the report, is the bi& erly quiet reaction of one of the most acclaimed Macedonian modern architects Mr. Petar Mulichkovski to the speculation to re-façade (in baroque style) the building of the Macedonian government, an object over which he claims complete architectural authorship.

Figure 3: The baroque look of the new building of the Ministry of Foreign A$ airs

Such con* icting a& itudes adherent to the arguments so produced are also to be found among citizens whose ‘conversationalisation of the public discourse’ (Fairclough 1995) shows visible traces of in* uence by political elites. / ese a& itudes can be seen in the citizens ongoing internet discussions. In this respect, it is interesting to start with a re* ection upon the competing voices which emerged only a day a+ er the airing of the project with a media visualization of the proposal aired on the 4th February 2010. Even at that early time, the concerns of those opposed revolved around similar issues. / e opponents of the project even then spoke of the potential high economic expenditure, which they deemed absurdly unnecessary. In addition they also commented upon the aesthetically and urbanistically appalling vision of 150 ARTICLES

Skopje presented in the video, cynically commented on by one of the discussion participants as: “it looks like a multiplayer on-line game, all we need is a monument commemorating fallen Orchs”. On the other hand, the supporters also proliferated the very same Governmental argument of ‘something is being done’, articulated in many instantiations like: ‘be& er to do something and err, than to do nothing’, ‘at least someone is making e) orts in this country’, and also ‘I see new buildings, monuments, and objects, I see di) erence’, all these ideas building up towards the binary metaphor of builder/destroyer applied to the VMRO-SDSM relation now more than ever. In 2013, the arguments have not drastically altered. / ose critical of the project now even more fervently condemn the project as being an economic disaster; sus- pecting that it did not a& ract as many tourist as the government predicted it would (Anfas 28. 4. 2013). / e supporters still advocate the bene' ts of the architectural, urbanistic and spatial remodeling of the city on the grounds of the project’s contribution to the degree of its rep- resent ability, as observed in the following comment made by one of the forum participants: “take a look at the postcards now and those from ' ve years ago, now there’s something to see” (Build.mk 3. 5. 2013). / e comment implies a fullness, visual richness, and hence consump- tive desirability, a surplus of meaning that was not brought forth by the former government.

Analytical Reﬂ ection and Concluding Remarks

It may be summarized that these opinions are not only in line with the binary argumentative structure formed and imposed by the ‘higher’, more politically elite instances of articulation but are undoubtedly formed by them. From a discursive point of view, it may be said that the project has created an insurmountable gap between the two opposed, un-changing, even still radicalizing subject positions between those in favor and those against it. / is status quo per- petuating dialogue is built against a discourse metaphorically structured on binary oppositions such as ‘builders/destroyers’, patriots/betrayers’, ‘totalitarians/democrats’, ‘amateurs/ experts’. In this context one linguistically intriguing act is the use of the phrase ‘something is happening’. Judging according to people’s narrativisations, the referent of the phrase ‘something’ is a multiplicity of visually perceptible objects such as facades, monuments and museums. But these are only additional signi' ers, and thus lacking more elaborated and concrete interpretants,12 the void is ' lled with Government supplied ideologemes including ‘national identity’, ‘a more a& ractive look’, ‘a ‘a change, a di) erence’. An ideological di) erence exists between a rich, but ambiguously signifying image of the city in the present moment, and the poorly signifying former image, sustained by the former government. / is in a way threatens to spill over, to use Guzelova’s metaphor, the discourse in which a semiotic ba& le is being fought for political ends. / is semiotic contest (trying to interpret what the project means) is confusing at best, both on a textual and pragmatic level. / us, if we conceptualize the whole project as a complex communicative event, a structural analysis of all its elements will show ambiguity and con* ict on all levels. For the government, the sender of this complex message is the Macedo- nian historical (‘debt to our heroes’, ‘a new Alexandria’, ‘rewriting hidden history’), which gives this project an instrumental value as a signi' er of the voices of the past which are articulated in an ideologically naturalizing manner through the implicit assumption that the

12 / e term is used in a Pierceian sense as the meaning of the sign along with its e) ect on the interpreter. MAJA MUHIĆ I ALEKSANDAR TAKOVSKI. Redeﬁ ning National Identity… 151

Government is not inventing, but presenting history. / us the project represents the will of history, of the people and is not understood to be the product of transient political institutions, such as a political party. On the other hand, the opposition strongly adheres to the argument that the project represents the abusive will of a single person, an argument time and again perpetuated by the likes of Mr. Grcev who criticize both the historical and the political ‘mono-accentuatedness’ of the project.

Figure 4: Circus attraction or His- toric attraction? The newly placed carousel by the Archeological Mu- seum, which can be seen in the background (Photo credit: Build. mk)

Be it as it may, this ambiguity, this con* icting interpretative contestation is present on all levels of articulation. In this context, the project itself is a complex politically burdened signi- ' er, through which di) erent speaker positions are trying to impose and legitimize their own interpretations. In this respect, some citizens greatest fear is that the contesting signi' eds, the interpretations; will not a) ect the material form and existence of this complex signi' er (the objects themselves) and the project will not cease to physically exist. / is may lead ' rst to the dominance of a single voiced discourse, and perhaps even to the end of the possibility of any ‘double voiced’ signi' cation (Bakhtin 1981). It will perpetuate itself through history, but not before it creates an irredeemable gap in Macedonian public and political life. / us the project itself represents both a factor, among many, and a symptom of Macedonian political power imbalances represented by the hegemonic discourse on the project and materially tes- ti' ed by the physical, imperishable existence of a project that may support only one position, that of the ruling political elite.

LITERATURA / REFERENCES

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. London, New York: Verso. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. ' e Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas. Barth, Frederik, ur/ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. ' e Social Organisation of Culture Di( erence. Bergen Oslo: Universitates Forlaget; London: George Allen & Unwin. Cohen, Abner, ur/ed. 1974. Urban Ethnicity. London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, Wellington: Tavistock Publications. Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [h& p://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511628061] Чаусидис, Никос. 2013. Проектот Скопје 2014: Скици за едно наредно истражување. Скопје. Eller, Jack i/and Caughlan Reed. 1993. “/ e Poverty of Primordialism. / e Demysti' cation of Ethnic A& achments”. Ethnic and Racial Studies 16: 187-201. 152 ARTICLES

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse as Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold. Fishman, Joshua. 1980. “Social / eory and Ethnography”. U/In Ethnic Diversity and Con+ ict in Eastern Europe. P. Sugar, ed. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 84-97. Geertz, Cli) ord, ur/ed. 1963. Old Societies and New States. New York: Free Press. Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nation and Nationalism. England: Basil Blackwell. Herzfeld, Michael. 1991. A Place in History. Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Uni- versity Press. Herzfeld, Michael. 2004. Cultural Intimacy. Social Poetics in the Nation-State. New York: Routledge. Keith, Michael. 1993. “From Punishment to Discipline? Racism, Racialization and the policing of Social Control”. U/In Racism, ' e City and the State. M. Cross i/and M. Keith, ur/eds. London: Routledge, 193-209. Vangeli, Anastas. 2011. “Nation-building Ancient Macedonian Style. / e Origins and the E) ectsof the So-called Antiquization in Macedonia”. Nationalities Paper 39/1: 13-32. [h& p://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2010.532775] Verdery, Katherine. 2000. ' e Political Lives of Dead Bodies. Reburial and Postsocialist Change. Columbia: Columbia University Press. van Dijk, A. Teun. 1997. “/ e Study of Discourse”. U/In Discourse as Structure and Process. T. A. van Dijk, ur/ed. London: SAGE Publications, 1-34. Wodak, Ruth et al. 2009. ' e Discoursive Construction of National Idenitity. Translated by A. Hirsch, R. Mi& en i/and J. W. Unger. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Elektronski izvori/ online sources 24 Vesti. “Interview with Miroslav Grcev and Vangel Bozinovski”. In 2014: Success or Failure, TV debate “24 Analiza” on 24 Vesti TV channel. Available: h& p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2o1vY2WpqQ (8. 5. 2013). Anfas. “/ e Minister is lying, the tourism has not grown”. Blog post. Available: h& p://anfas.blogspot.com/2013/04/54-2014. html#!/2013/04/54-2014.html (28. 4. 2013). Build.mk. “Poll: Skopje 2014”. Forum discussion. Available: h& p://www.build.mk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=846&PID=151323 (3. 5. 2013). Faktor. “Milenko Nedelkovski about Skopje 2014: We have built a new Alexandria”. Comment. Available: h& p://faktor.mk/ar- chives/44878(28. 4. 2013). eVesti. “/ e Bedem Association demands the Mayor Zernovski to withdraw the decision about the project Skopje 2014”. Press release. Available: h& p://evesti.mk/2013/04/27/zdruzenieto-badem-bara-zernovski-da-se-otkaze-od-skopje-201/(27. 4. 2013). Kajgana Forum. “Skopje in the eyes of foreign tourists”. Forum discussion. Available: h& p://forum.kajgana.com/(13. 2. 2013). Koteska, J. 2011. “Troubles with History: Skopje 2014”. ARTMargins Online, retrieved from h& p://www.artmargins.com/index. php/2-articles/655-troubles-with-history-skopje-2014 Kurir. “World Macedonian Congress: / e Macedonians proud of Skopje 2013 project”. Available: h& p://kurir.mk/makedonija/ vesti/115071-SMK-Makedoncite-gordi-so-proektot-Skopje-2014 (9. 5. 2013). Makfax Video Service. “Visualization of Skopje Center in 2014”. Video (including comments). Available: h& p://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=YBYtmAOt7RI (4. 2. 2010). Okno. “Okno survey about Skopje 2014(part 1)”. Available: h& p://okno.mk/node/22083. Okno (25. 4. 2013). “What does the Architect Association think about Skopje 2014?” Available: h& p://www.okno.mk/ node/27698(17. 9. 2012). Radio Slobodna Evropa. “Genetic Engineering”. Skopje Rear-view Mirror: Ten independent investigative stories about Skopje capital projects [video]. Available: h& p://www.makdenes.org/media/video/24955674.html(15. 4. 2013). Zebra Online. “Vangel Bozinovski and Iskra Geshovska on Skopje 2014 project”, in “Zebra” TV debate.Video (including comments). Available: h& p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVy4KpuvSnY&feature=player_embedded (9. 5. 2013).